Sotomayor Also Made "Wise Woman" Comment In 1994 -- And Won Key Senate Vote In 1998
Greg Sargent has discovered that Sonia Sotomayor's "wise Latina" line from 2001 was not the only time Sotomayor said something like that -- back in 1994, she also expressed basically the same sentiment in relation to women: "I would hope that a wise woman with the richness of her experience would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion."
So what does this mean?
• Greg thinks that the fact that this was well known at the time of Sotomayor's confirmation to her current position on the appeals court would certainly seem to undercut the Republicans who are shocked -- shocked! -- to find out about this now.
• Michael Goldfarb, that great humanitarian from The Weekly Standard, says this really contradicts the White House for saying that Sotomayor would want to rephrase a poor choice of words.
• Over at National Review, Ed Whelan poses the hypothesis that the GOP staffers in 1998 simply failed to spot this among the documents they were sorting through -- and says the "the strong reaction that Sotomayor's 2001 comment has elicited renders desperate any suggestion that Republicans are somehow estopped from objecting to it" due to a failure to object in 1998.
• Ben Smith simply wonders, tongue in cheek, whether Sotomayor's 2001 audience will be "a little peeved that she gave a retread speech."
It should be noted that the two seemingly different takes on this from Sargent and Goldfarb aren't mutually exclusive -- both the GOP and White House positions look a bit deflated.
Josh
Matt
Eric
So the context is the saying attributed to Sandra Day O'Connor that a wise old woman and a wise old man are going to come to the same judgment?
But Sotomayor has made the comment that a wise old woman will come to a better decision than a wise old man, and further, that a wise old Latina would come to a better decision than a wise old white man? I think if I were a wise old white man, or wise old man, I'd be feeling a bit dissed at this point.
Who cares what she thinks about wise old women, wise old men, wise old white men or wise old Latinas, as long as those thoughts don't reflect how she applies the law?
June 3, 2009 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not that I support Sotomayor, but her "wise Latina" comment is self-evidently true; i.e., familiarity generally breeds better insight. Her "wise woman" comment I take in the broader vein that discrimination makes one more sensitive and insightful to the ways of the (male-dominated) world. That's not self-evidently true, but almost.
June 3, 2009 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is you view as a liberal (and maybe a misandrist as well as are so many Americans?). You can't win the argument with this; she needs to be a Justice for all Americans.
June 3, 2009 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
The question is, within what context were those statements made?
It is perfectly reasonable to accept those statements if she was referring to a woman's ability to make better calls on issues of gender, or that a Latina's life experiences would lead to better decisions in cases involving racism. As I understand it, the "wise Latina" statement did fall within that context. I don't know about the "wise woman" comment.
If, on the other hand, she was making blanket statement, I think this poses a real problem. Simply reverse the statement. If a white male said the same thing about "wise white men", there would be an uproar over it.
For this, context is everything. All of the evidence isn't in yet.
June 3, 2009 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I said earlier that I bet she had said similar things before and I was chided -- don't tell us the sky is falling, O.T.! I bet this is not the only other instance, either, I bet there are at least two others and at least one of those will be more inflammatory. She was an activist early on, and loved to talk.
Her best argument is that this was a semi tongue-in-cheek rhetorical flourish and she only really meant that a Latina woman who might happen to be wise will make better decisions than a man who is not wise, and that experience itself has value. If her remaining as-yet-unreported statements (if any) can support that, that is.
June 3, 2009 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the nearly identical 1994 comment does inconveniently show that she probably would NOT want to 'reword' the 2001 comment. So she clearly then does show the sort of left orientation disposed to 'knock The Man down a notch'. So this could be a bit of a thorn for Obama. However, I imagine many of her fair and non-predictable rulings will ultimately show up and allow her to prevail.
June 4, 2009 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
What this shows is that racism is far, far more toxic than sexism in this country. When Sotomayor made the comment as a woman, leaving out race, it was uncontroversial (or at least not nearly so). Similarly, affirmative action for women is much less controversial than race-based affirmative action (and in fact white women have been by far the greatest recipients of affirmative action).
In both cases, I think the intent of her statement is to support the notion that diversity is important to have in the courts. For example, it should be uncontroversial that a woman would have a different understanding of sexual discrimination and sexual harassment based on her experiences. Similarly, a minority may have a different understanding of race discrimination, police brutality, etc. based on his/her experience. Sotomayor's choice of words was inflammatory but I believe the intent behind her words, while also controversial, is something that many more people would agree with.
June 4, 2009 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink